NationStates Jolt Archive

This is not intended to be a flame or a personal attack, merely an observation. With very few exceptions, almost every Darwinist I've ever met has been an arrogant, haughty bigot with zero tolerance for any view that does not conform to their ideas. People who believe in Creationism are laughed at and subjected to smears and ridicule. Many Darwinists express alarm that "intelligent design," et. al., is taught in public schools, a sentiment I share, as I believe religion has no place in a science classroom. Still, the treatment Darwinists mete out to those who don't believe in evolution sickens me, much like how communists refer to anyone who doesn't conform to their ideas as "fascists." So I ask you, Darwinists: Why the bigotry?

Quick question does science try to force unstubstanciated claims through the education system that are not verifiable let alone testable?

This is not intended to be a flame or a personal attack, merely an observation. With very few exceptions, almost every Darwinist I've ever met has been an arrogant, haughty bigot with zero tolerance for any view that does not conform to their ideas. People who believe in Creationism are laughed at and subjected to smears and ridicule. Many Darwinists express alarm that "intelligent design," et. al., is taught in public schools, a sentiment I share, as I believe religion has no place in a science classroom. Still, the treatment Darwinists mete out to those who don't believe in evolution sickens me, much like how communists refer to anyone who doesn't conform to their ideas as "fascists." So I ask you, Darwinists: Why the bigotry?

Two reasons.

First, humans seem to be hard-wired to accept their own values as having precedence over other, 'alien' values. The same applies to both sides of the debate: I think it's a bit heavy-handed of you to only mention 'Darwinists' without implicating their opposition.

Secondly, they elect people like Bush. That will put us in a bad mood any day.

This is not intended to be a flame or a personal attack, merely an observation. With very few exceptions, almost every Darwinist I've ever met has been an arrogant, haughty bigot with zero tolerance for any view that does not conform to their ideas. People who believe in Creationism are laughed at and subjected to smears and ridicule. Many Darwinists express alarm that "intelligent design," et. al., is taught in public schools, a sentiment I share, as I believe religion has no place in a science classroom. Still, the treatment Darwinists mete out to those who don't believe in evolution sickens me, much like how communists refer to anyone who doesn't conform to their ideas as "fascists." So I ask you, Darwinists: Why the bigotry?
What if someone came up to you and insisted that there were no such things as airplanes. You showed him evidence of them, but he still claimed you were wrong. He claims that nothing heavier than air can possibly fly. How would you react?

Two reasons.

First, humans seem to be hard-wired to accept their own values as having precedence over other, 'alien' values. The same applies to both sides of the debate: I think it's a bit heavy-handed of you to only mention 'Darwinists' without implicating their opposition.

Secondly, they elect people like Bush. That will put us in a bad mood any day.

I'm a Creationist, and I hate Bush. I have just as much disrespect for those trying to force ID down peoples' throat as Darwinists do. I just don't see why they can't show more respect, rather than calling Creationists idiots, etc.

what the hell is a darwinist?

What if someone came up to you and insisted that there were no such things as airplanes. You showed him evidence of them, but he still claimed you were wrong. He claims that nothing heavier than air can possibly fly. How would you react?

I'd try to point out to him he was wrong, but if he didn't believe me, I'd just shrug my shoulders and walk off. Just because someone is an idiot or thinks something you consider stupid doesn't mean they're any less human or less deserving of respect.

This is not intended to be a flame or a personal attack, merely an observation. With very few exceptions, almost every Darwinist I've ever met has been an arrogant, haughty bigot with zero tolerance for any view that does not conform to their ideas. People who believe in Creationism are laughed at and subjected to smears and ridicule. Many Darwinists express alarm that "intelligent design," et. al., is taught in public schools, a sentiment I share, as I believe religion has no place in a science classroom. Still, the treatment Darwinists mete out to those who don't believe in evolution sickens me, much like how communists refer to anyone who doesn't conform to their ideas as "fascists." So I ask you, Darwinists: Why the bigotry?
Because most people tend to be arrogant, hypocritical bigots, whether they be Evolutionists, Creationists, neutrals, or anything.

*goes back to seclusion on a Himalaya mountaintop*

what the hell is a darwinist?
A word misused by creationists to describe people who are convinced by the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution.

I'm a Creationist, and I hate Bush. I have just as much disrespect for those trying to force ID down peoples' throat as Darwinists do. I just don't see why they can't show more respect, rather than calling Creationists idiots, etc.

We allow people to hold their own views. Its a very important freedom. But people also have the right to criticize others views. You can believe that god made the earth in 7 days all you want. But that doesn't mean I can't say thats about as dumb as believing the world is flat. No where is it written that I must respect your point of view. I must allow you to hold it but I can say its an idiotic one all I want.

I'd try to point out to him he was wrong, but if he didn't believe me, I'd just shrug my shoulders and walk off. Just because someone is an idiot or thinks something you consider stupid doesn't mean they're any less human or less deserving of respect.
What if he wanted to teach his belief to your kids? What if he wasn't alone and had a bunch of anti-airplanists who would chime in anytime someone mentioned airplanes? It's only natural to lose patience with such willfull ignorance.

We allow people to hold their own views. Its a very important freedom in this country. But people also have the right to criticize others views. You can believe that god made the earth in 7 days all you want. But that doesn't mean I can't say thats about as dumb as believing the world is flat.

Nothing wrong with criticizing views, but calling people "idiots," etc. is out of line. Granted, a lot of Darwinists are respectful. Most of the ones I met (and I emphasize most that I've met, not most) not only criticize the views of the person, but they criticize the person himself.

You have to remember, nontheists are constantly dealing with fundamentalists. It's hard not to get frustrated under those conditions.

What if he wanted to teach his belief to your kids? What if he wasn't alone and had a bunch of anti-airplanists who would chime in anytime someone mentioned airplanes? It's only natural to lose patience with such willfull ignorance.

I feel the same way as you. People like that shouldn't be teachers. That's not the point I'm trying to make. Many Darwinists I've met label all Creationists as idiots, morons, etc., including people (like me) who strongly believe religion shouldn't be crammed down anyone's throat and that ID has no place in a science classroom (unless it's at a private religious school, or something).

Nothing wrong with criticizing views, but calling people "idiots," etc. is out of line. Granted, a lot of Darwinists are respectful. Most of the ones I met (and I emphasize most that I've met, not most) not only criticize the views of the person, but they criticize the person himself.

And I'm allowed to do so. Your allowed to hold your belief and I'm allowed to call you an idiot because of it(I'm not calling you an idiot here its just for the sake of example). Freedom is a double edged sword.

It's very simple really. If you hold fast to an opinion in the face of hard scientific evidence, whilst providing nothing to support your own opinion, you forfeit your right to be taken seriously on that subject.

Like if I insisted there never was a Napoleon I, Emperor of France. You know he is buried in L'Invalides in Paris, and that history has recorded his existence beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet, I hold firm to my belief. Do you have to say 'well I respect your differing opinion on this matter.'? Nope, because it's not a differing opinion, it's a falsity.

A word misused by creationists to describe people who are convinced by the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution.
origin of the species was published in 1859. i doubt there are any real darwinists left. darwin was revolutionary in his time and within the 19th century understanding of biology his stuff made good sense but many of his ideas have been shown to be wrong. that is the process of science

to call it darwinism is to change science into religion with darwin as an infallible prophet. thats not the way science works. we have an understanding of the processes of evolution today that darwin had no inkling of.

Why the bigotry?

It isn't bigotry when your beliefs are idiotic.

Insulting people who want to impose a "stupid" view on others is one thing. Insulting people who have "stupid" views, but come their "stupid" views to themselves, is something different.

I feel the same way as you. People like that shouldn't be teachers. That's not the point I'm trying to make. Many Darwinists I've met label all Creationists as idiots, morons, etc., including people (like me) who strongly believe religion shouldn't be crammed down anyone's throat and that ID has no place in a science classroom (unless it's at a private religious school, or something).
Unfortunately some creationists are morons that try to get their religious docrtine taught in science classes. The impact if they succeed is that the grand unifying theory in biology is thrown out and biological research becomes random trial and error, mutation without selection, which will produce fewer usefull benefits.

origin of the species was published in 1859. i doubt there are any real darwinists left. darwin was revolutionary in his time and within the 19th century understanding of biology his stuff made good sense but many of his ideas have been shown to be wrong. that is the process of science

to call it darwinism is to change science into religion with darwin as an infallible prophet. thats not the way science works. we have an understanding of the processes of evolution today that darwin had no inkling of.
And that's exactly what some of them are trying to do in an effort to put modern evolutionary theory on the same level as their religious doctrine.

Unfortunately some creationists are morons that try to get their religious docrtine taught in science classes. The impact if they succeed is that the grand unifying theory in biology is thrown out and biological research becomes random trial and error, mutation without selection, which will produce fewer usefull benefits.

Exactly. Some Creationists are morons. Not all of them, though. There are a lot of Darwinist bigots- many on this forum, but I won't name them- who think anyone that doesn't believe in evolution is a moron.

This is not intended to be a flame or a personal attack, merely an observation. With very few exceptions, almost every Darwinist I've ever met has been an arrogant, haughty bigot with zero tolerance for any view that does not conform to their ideas. People who believe in Creationism are laughed at and subjected to smears and ridicule. Many Darwinists express alarm that "intelligent design," et. al., is taught in public schools, a sentiment I share, as I believe religion has no place in a science classroom. Still, the treatment Darwinists mete out to those who don't believe in evolution sickens me,

Put simply, there is no reasoning with IDers. They aren't willing to tolerate our beliefs, no - their religion is ABSOLUTE TRUTH™ and cannot be argued with. And that's about where their argument ends. Why should I treat their viewpoint seriously if they dismiss mine without providing evidence beyond their literal scriptures which are, of course, ABSOLUTE TRUTH™ and cannot by their very nature be debated?

much like how communists refer to anyone who doesn't conform to their ideas as "fascists."

I don't. Only foolish authoritarian marxists do that.

Insulting people who want to impose a "stupid" view on others is one thing. Insulting people who have "stupid" views, but come their "stupid" views to themselves, is something different.
Yes, but if you keep your views to yourself: surely you've participated in many evolution/ID debates. If so you've probably used the argument that the universe is too complex to have evolved randomly. (All creationists seem to.) If so, then you're trying to impose that view on people, because all evidence shows that the universe did not evolve randomly. The processes were governed by the laws of physics, survival of the fittest, etc.

Of course, if you've never participated in an evolution debate, ignore this post. If you've never used that argument, then explain why it is you believe in creationism...

Put simply, there is no reasoning with IDers. They aren't willing to tolerate our beliefs, no - their religion is ABSOLUTE TRUTH™ and cannot be argued with. And that's about where their argument ends. Why should I treat their viewpoint seriously if they dismiss mine without providing evidence beyond their literal scriptures which are, of course, ABSOLUTE TRUTH™ and cannot by their very nature be debated?

Calling IDers (people who try to force religion on people) morons is one thing, but calling all Creationists morons is something else. Unlike IDers, I keep my religious views to myself, and don't try to convert anyone or impose anything upon them.

Of course, if you've never participated in an evolution debate, ignore this post. If you've never used that argument, then explain why it is you believe in creationism...

I don't debate, period. My debating skills are nill.

Originally, I was not intollerant of the PEOPLE, I was intollerant of the IDEAS. Much like how I'm intollerant of the idea that a human being can fly by flapping his arms hard enough, I was intollerant of the idea that "God did it" is a satisfying and useful answer to anything. However, I also remembered that good people sometimes hold stupid ideas, and I should cut them some slack because nobody's perfect.

But then they crossed the line. The reason I now get bitchy at the PEOPLE is because they try to force their ignorance into public policy. You can go around believing that leeches cure cancer as much as you like, but if you start trying to force "leech theory" into medical school curriculems then I'm going to get pissed.

If some yahoo came to your school and suggested you replace chemistry class with alchemy class, how would you react? If somebody suggested that we should "teach the debate" about whether the Earth is flat or round, what would you think of them? If they wanted to teach you that bodily illness is caused by evil spirits and gypsy curses, would you really be able to hold in your laughter? Maybe...maybe pity would overwhelm the humor of the moment.

Personally, I'm sick of this whole "tollerance" thing going around. For some reason we're now being told that we must embrace all ideas, no matter how crackpot, because having intellectual standards is mean. Research, evidence, years of painstaking work, these things mean nothing next to the All Powerful Opinion. Creationists are like kids who expect to be given an A+ for filling out a worksheet, even though they filled in every answer wrong...after all, if their opinion is that 2+2=7, then the teacher should be tollerant of that opinion and give them a passing mark.

Well here's a thought, Creationists: quit yer bitching. Scientists are about a million times harsher toward one another than they have been toward you. You're getting handled with kid gloves, treated like the delicate infants you are, and you should be goddam thankful that you aren't being held to the same standards that scientists apply to their own diciplines.

I don't debate, period. My debating skills are nill.

I am shocked. Shocked and dismayed.

I am shocked. Shocked and dismayed.

Please, I'm trying to be serious here.

its simple: we're right.


of course people are quite welcome to believe whatever mumbojumbo they want, but: its wrong, it hasn't been tried and tested in the same way darwinism has, your evidence is pathetic, and frankly.... creationists are just wrong. we're trying to help you understand by laughing at your ridiculous beliefs. of course, i'm kidding.... or am i? ;)

i'll leave that up to you, but, on a more serious note, its a matter of faith. creationism cannot make (real) sense to a person without belief or faith in god. most evolutionists are atheist or faith-less, and as such without the underpinning cornerstone of the creationists' idea - that god actually exists - that belief becomes nothing more than silly.

I don't debate, period.
That was obvious from this thread, and the one that sparked it... :rolleyes:

Originally, I was not intollerant of the PEOPLE, I was intollerant of the IDEAS. Much like how I'm intollerant of the idea that a human being can fly by flapping his arms hard enough, I was intollerant of the idea that "God did it" is a satisfying and useful answer to anything. However, I also remembered that good people sometimes hold stupid ideas, and I should cut them some slack because nobody's perfect.

But then they crossed the line. The reason I now get bitchy at the PEOPLE is because they try to force their ignorance into public policy. You can go around believing that leeches cure cancer as much as you like, but if you start trying to force "leech theory" into medical school curriculems then I'm going to get pissed.

If some yahoo came to your school and suggested you replace chemistry class with alchemy class, how would you react? If somebody suggested that we should "teach the debate" about whether the Earth is flat or round, what would you think of them? If they wanted to teach you that bodily illness is caused by evil spirits and gypsy curses, would you really be able to hold in your laughter? Maybe...maybe pity would overwhelm the humor of the moment.

Personally, I'm sick of this whole "tollerance" thing going around. For some reason we're now being told that we must embrace all ideas, no matter how crackpot, because having intellectual standards is mean. Research, evidence, years of painstaking work, these things mean nothing next to the All Powerful Opinion. Creationists are like kids who expect to be given an A+ for filling out a worksheet, even though they filled in every answer wrong...after all, if their opinion is that 2+2=7, then the teacher should be tollerant of that opinion and give them a passing mark.

Well here's a thought, Creationists: quit yer bitching. Scientists are about a million times harsher toward one another than they have been toward you. You're getting handled with kid gloves, treated like the delicate infants you are, and you should be goddam thankful that you aren't being held to the same standards that scientists apply to their own diciplines.

I never said we have to embrace all ideas. If people keep their ideas to themselves, who cares? If, on the other hand, they want to be become teachers, and teach alchemy instead of chemistry, or what-not, then go ahead and make fun of them. I don't see why all Creationists should be lumped together with IDers and other yahoos who try to cram ideas down other peoples' throats.

That was obvious from this thread, and the one that sparked it... :rolleyes:

PWNED!!!

What if someone came up to you and insisted that there were no such things as airplanes. You showed him evidence of them, but he still claimed you were wrong. He claims that nothing heavier than air can possibly fly. How would you react?
Take him for a ride?
Shrug my shoulders and walk away?

Calling IDers (people who try to force religion on people) morons is one thing, but calling all Creationists morons is something else. Unlike IDers, I keep my religious views to myself, and don't try to convert anyone or impose anything upon them.

Which is fine. If you look carefully, you'll note that I didn't call all creationists, or even IDers morons. I will, however, refuse to take ID seriously.

Take him for a ride?
Shrug my shoulders and walk away?
Somehow I think that in your mind, if not out loud, you'd be calling him a lunatic and a moron.

Which is fine. If you look carefully, you'll note that I didn't call all creationists, or even IDers morons. I will, however, refuse to take ID seriously.

Too bad some of the other people here don't feel the way you do.

Somehow I think that in your mind, if not out loud, you'd be calling him a lunatic and a moron.
That's a critical difference, isn't it. I would probably go home and have a big laugh over it, but I wouldn't go out of my way to insult the person. I just might say, "I think your wrong" and leave it at that.

Exactly. Some Creationists are morons. Not all of them, though. There are a lot of Darwinist bigots- many on this forum, but I won't name them- who think anyone that doesn't believe in evolution is a moron.*raises hand*

...darn.


The thing is, as others here have already said, that there is no possibility of reasoning with creationists. I can't respect someone that willfully closes their eyes to clear logical evidence, and instead advocates superstisious hokus-pokus. Although the ones that try to force their doctrine down my throat annoy me considerably more than the ones that do not (like Lew), I still can't fathom either groups beliefs.
Your progressive views are appreciated, but the belief behind that is still contemptable.

Creationists are like kids who expect to be given an A+ for filling out a worksheet, even though they filled in every answer wrong...after all, if their opinion is that 2+2=7, then the teacher should be tollerant of that opinion and give them a passing mark.

Here's the thing, though. It's a proven fact that 2+2=7 is NOT true. Creationism and Darwinism are not proven facts. They are unproven theories.

That's a critical difference, isn't it. I would probably go home and have a big laugh over it, but I wouldn't go out of my way to insult the person. I just might say, "I think your wrong" and leave it at that.

Exactly. Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean you have to be an asshole about it.

I never said we have to embrace all ideas. If people keep their ideas to themselves, who cares? If, on the other hand, they want to be become teachers, and teach alchemy instead of chemistry, or what-not, then go ahead and make fun of them. I don't see why all Creationists should be lumped together with IDers and other yahoos who try to cram ideas down other peoples' throats.
Honey, you answered your own questions. IF the Creationists keep their ideas to themselves, I've got no problem with them. I said precisely that in my post. The problem is they DON'T keep their ideas to themselves. Are you unaware of the fact that there are actually trials in progress in the US concerning whether Creation myths should be TAUGHT IN SCIENCE CLASSES? How the hell does that qualify as "keeping their ideas to themselves"?

This is not intended to be a flame or a personal attack, merely an observation. With very few exceptions, almost every Darwinist I've ever met has been an arrogant, haughty bigot with zero tolerance for any view that does not conform to their ideas. People who believe in Creationism are laughed at and subjected to smears and ridicule. Many Darwinists express alarm that "intelligent design," et. al., is taught in public schools, a sentiment I share, as I believe religion has no place in a science classroom. Still, the treatment Darwinists mete out to those who don't believe in evolution sickens me, much like how communists refer to anyone who doesn't conform to their ideas as "fascists." So I ask you, Darwinists: Why the bigotry?

What exactly is your definition of the term "Darwinist"?

Honey, you answered your own questions. IF the Creationists keep their ideas to themselves, I've got no problem with them. I said precisely that in my post. The problem is they DON'T keep their ideas to themselves. Are you unaware of the fact that there are actually trials in progress in the US concerning whether Creation myths should be TAUGHT IN SCIENCE CLASSES? How the hell does that qualify as "keeping their ideas to themselves"?

I know a lot of Creationists who keep their ideas to themselves, and they're as disgusted with IDers as you are.

Here's the thing, though. It's a proven fact that 2+2=7 is NOT true. Creationism and Darwinism are not proven facts. They are unproven theories.
Here's the actual thing, though:

Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory. Creationism is not a theory, it is a myth. Not only is Creationism unproven, it is unprovable, untestable, and scientifically invalid. I have no problem with teaching kids about myths and legends (I learned about them in public school myself), but I strongly object to lying to children and telling them that "God did it" is a scientific theory.

Here's the actual thing, though:

Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory. Creationism is not a theory, it is a myth. Not only is Creationism unproven, it is unprovable, untestable, and scientifically invalid. I have no problem with teaching kids about myths and legends (I learned about them in public school myself), but I strongly object to lying to children and telling them that "God did it" is a scientific theory.

Creationism is a theory. It is impossible to prove or disprove. Hence, there's no way to prove it's a myth.

I know a lot of Creationists who keep their ideas to themselves, and they're as disgusted with IDers as you are.
Good for them. I hope those Creationists you know are all voluntarily choosing not to use any of the medical treatments developed using evolutionary theory. I would hate to think there are hypocritical Creationists out there...

I know a lot of Creationists who keep their ideas to themselves, and they're as disgusted with IDers as you are.
well good. if you keep your beliefs to yourself you're welcome to them and i won't be an asshole to you. but i'll still think your beliefs are silly and laugh at them - but not at you.

however i will happily laugh at, and fight against, those crazy IDers if they ever get any voice over here in britain (which they won't thank fuck)

Creationism is a theory. It is impossible to prove or disprove. Hence, there's no way to prove it's a myth.
Creationism is not a theory. Theories must be testable in some way. They must make predictions that can be falsified.

Creationism is a theory. It is impossible to prove or disprove. Hence, there's no way to prove it's a myth.
wheras evolution is as damn near to scientific fact as one can get.

i rest my case re: why some people think creationists are nuts ;)


edit: plust what DC said, of course...

Creationism is a theory. It is impossible to prove or disprove.

Hence what makes it not be a scientific theory. It has to be testable to be one, and you yourself admit it isn't.

Exactly. Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean you have to be an asshole about it.
It just goes back to manners, or the lack of them.

Here's the thing, though. It's a proven fact that 2+2=7 is NOT true. Creationism and Darwinism are not proven facts. They are unproven theories.

I don't know about Darwinism, but evolution is almost scientific law. Its not quite, but its very close. Its hardly "unproven"

Creationism is a theory. It is impossible to prove or disprove.

*SIGH*

Okay, let's go really slow here. "Theory," in common usage, means "guess." However, in science (which is what we are talking about here), "theory" means "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, which has been repeatedly tested and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

Creationism explains nothing. It says "God did it," which leaves you exactly where you were when you first asked the question. Creationism cannot be tested at all, and certainly has not been repeatedly tested. Creationism makes no predictions about natural phenomena. Creationism is not a theory.

Hence, there's no way to prove it's a myth.
You sure?

Myth (n): A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.

Seems to me that it's pretty damn easy to prove that Creationism fits the definition of the word "myth." I did so in two seconds by openning my dictionary to the "m" section.

Creationism is not a theory. Theories must be testable in some way. They must make predictions that can be falsified.

It does make predictions, though, if you take as an exclusive option (i.e. pure creationism, not a mixture of creationism and evolution). It predicts that there is no evolution. Which is clearly wrong.

The "they're both theories!!1111" card is the silliest one of all. A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has supported with evidence that concensuss considers suffiecient to for it to be considered true, until something better comes along. Scientific facts cannot exceed the status of "theory".

This is a cause for confusion, since "theory" in spoken english does not have the same meanning as it does in the scientific community.

I'm intollerant of the idea that a human being can fly by flapping his arms hard enough,
Dude, I can totally do that.



Anyway...

There is a hole in the argument posted-

IF you keep your beliefs to yourself there is no instance where someone who does not believe in your hocus pocus to be intolerent. Are you really suggesting that you're sitting silently at a bus stop and having people lean in and say, "I know what you're thinking. You're thinking god created the world in 6 days with a glass of sand and ball of wax. You're an idiot."

No. It is no more a subject of discussion for us then the notion that if I throw a ball in the air it will come down. We don't bring it up. In order for intollerence to happen the idea has to be forwarded. And how patient would you be with someone insisting that the ball won't come down no matter how many times you toss it in front of the person and it keeps landing on thier head? Even if you let the cat hold the belief you wouldn't make him your lifeline call, now would you?

Here's the actual thing, though:

Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory. Creationism is not a theory, it is a myth.
Also, "unproven theory" is an oxymoron. A theory, in and of itself, is defined as a hypothesis that has been proven so many times it is held to be true. Intelligent design is just a hypothesis, because it not only has not been proven, it cannot be proven, or even tested. Passing a hypothesis off as fact tends to piss off the more scientifically minded among us, as you've doubtless encountered in the form of "bigotry".

Oh boy. People, evolution is fact, not theory.
Natural selection is a theory posed to explain the obvious (evolution).

Second, I run into far more douchebag anti-science Christians than I do uppity anti-religion evolutionists.
I also know more Christian evolutionists than I do atheist ones, so this thread doesn't provide me with much to speak of from experience.

This is not intended ot be a flame or a personal attack, merely an observation. With very few exceptions, almost every Heliocentrist I've ever met has been an arrogant, haughty bigot with zero tolerance for any view that does not conform to their ideas. People who believe in the Geocentric model of the universe are laughed at and subjected to smears and ridicule. Many Heliocentrists express alarm that "Ptolemaic Astronomy" et. al., is taught in public schools, a sentiment I share, as I believe religion has no place in a science classroom. Still, the treatment that Heliocentrists mete out to those who don't believe in a spheroidal planet sickens me, much like hwo communists refer to anyone who doesn't conform to their ideas as "fascists". So I ask you Heliocentrists, why the bigotry?

Here's the thing, though. It's a proven fact that 2+2=7 is NOT true. Creationism and Darwinism are not proven facts. They are unproven theories.


No, it is not a "proven fact". It is simply a theory—i.e. it has been tested so many times that it is held to be true. New evidence may be discovered tomorrow that states that 2+2 actually equals 7 because of some quantum imbalance or whatever.

Likewise, you cannot have an unproven theory. A theory, by its definition, has been proved and tested. An unproven theory is merely a hypothesis.

Creationism is a theory. It is impossible to prove or disprove. Hence, there's no way to prove it's a myth.Nope. The core requirement of a scientific theory is that it can be falsified by experimentation or observation.

Creationism is a theory. It is impossible to prove or disprove. Hence, there's no way to prove it's a myth.
You obviously understand neither the nature nor the definition of scientific theory.

wheras evolution is as damn near to scientific fact as one can get.

i rest my case re: why some people think creationists are nuts ;)
Well, a lot of people still believe in myths (such as Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc.), and we are tolerant of them. However, if they try to pass those myths off as scientific fact, we lose our patience. :rolleyes:

Now it all makese sense. The whole "End Socialist[sic] exploitation!" thing and now this.

Well, a lot of people still believe in myths (such as Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc.), and we are tolerant of them. However, if they try to pass those myths off as scientific fact, we lose our patience. :rolleyes:
Exactly. Creationism is myth. If a person chooses to believe in that myth, that's their business. If a person tries to claim their myth is "scientific," they are simply incorrect, and I'm not going to apologize for telling them they're wrong.

Now it all makese sense. The whole "End Socialist[sic] exploitation!" thing and now this.

I like the "End Capitalist Exploitation!" sig idea. I'm using that too.

You obviously understand neither the nature nor the definition of scientific theory.
We've been trying to explain that to him for the past 30+ posts.

This is not intended to be a flame or a personal attack, merely an observation. With very few exceptions, almost every Darwinist I've ever met has been an arrogant, haughty bigot with zero tolerance for any view that does not conform to their ideas. People who believe in Creationism are laughed at and subjected to smears and ridicule. Many Darwinists express alarm that "intelligent design," et. al., is taught in public schools, a sentiment I share, as I believe religion has no place in a science classroom. Still, the treatment Darwinists mete out to those who don't believe in evolution sickens me, much like how communists refer to anyone who doesn't conform to their ideas as "fascists." So I ask you, Darwinists: Why the bigotry?

You pretty much answered your own question in your last sentence. Visit most any University and you will quickly find that their faculity and administrations have been almost entirely over run with leftists practicing indoctrination instead of education. It should be of no surprise as the infection of the educational system is a stated method of operation for both communist and socialist doctrine. Just look around one of those places and you find it is consumed in diversity of everything except, "Thought".

I like the "End Capitalist Exploitation!" sig idea. I'm using that too.
Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man; Communism is the other way around.

Fortunately, us socialists don't figure into that equation at all. :p

You pretty much answered your own question in your last sentence. Visit most any University and you will quickly find that their faculity and administrations have been almost entirely over run with leftists practicing indoctrination instead of education. It should be of no surprise as the infection of the educational system is a stated method of operation for both communist and socialist doctrine. Just look around one of those places and you find it is consumed in diversity of everything except, "Thought".Haha. That's so full of conspiracy theories it's almost funny.

Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man; Communism is the other way around.

Statist marxism, yeah.

Fortunately, us socialists don't figure into that equation at all. :p

Depends.

If either Creationism or Evolution is 'scientific', How can they be tested and disproved?

Neither is scientific because neither can be disproved via testing.

Biological Sciences should teach what we know, how we know it and how we can test it. Guessing 'whys' and ‘what-ifs’ that cannot be tested should be a different class altogether OR open-ended and all inclusive.

If either Creationism or Evolution is 'scientific', How can they be tested and disproved?

Neither is scientific because neither can be disproved via testing.

Biological Sciences should teach what we know, how we know it and how we can test it. Guessing 'whys' and ‘what-ifs’ that cannot be tested should be a different class altogether OR open-ended and all inclusive.Or by observation. We have a fossil record that we can observe and Evolution can be disproven by finding a fossilized squirrel from before the time of dinosaurs.

If either Creationism or Evolution is 'scientific', How can they be tested and disproved?
I dont see that Creationism can be tested.

Neither is scientific because neither can be disproved via testing.
Biological Sciences should teach what we know, how we know it and how we can test it. Guessing 'whys' and ‘what-ifs’ that cannot be tested should be a different class altogether OR open-ended and all inclusive.
What makes you think the predictions arising from evolutionary theory cant be tested in test capable of falsifying the prediction?

You pretty much answered your own question in your last sentence. Visit most any University and you will quickly find that their faculity and administrations have been almost entirely over run with leftists practicing indoctrination instead of education. It should be of no surprise as the infection of the educational system is a stated method of operation for both communist and socialist doctrine. Just look around one of those places and you find it is consumed in diversity of everything except, "Thought".

Tinfoil hats! Get em while they're cheap. 5 for a euro. Be the envy of your all your peers with this amazing logic dispelling device! Come one, come all!



What makes you think the predictions arising from evolutionary theory cant be tested in test capable of falsifying the prediction?

See how happy this customer is? He actuall believes that THE ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY is acting in concert against him. That's thier incredible power!

If either Creationism or Evolution is 'scientific', How can they be tested and disproved?

Neither is scientific because neither can be disproved via testing.

Biological Sciences should teach what we know, how we know it and how we can test it. Guessing 'whys' and ‘what-ifs’ that cannot be tested should be a different class altogether OR open-ended and all inclusive.
Wrong. Evolution can be disproved by observation. However, no evidence has been found yet to disprove it.

Creationism, on the other hand, cannot be disproved by anything, or proved, except some ancient texts that we all know about.

If either Creationism or Evolution is 'scientific', How can they be tested and disproved?

Neither is scientific because neither can be disproved via testing.

Incorrect. Evolutionary theory generates countless hypotheses that are testable. Indeed, some of our greatest recent scientific advances have come from the verification of such hypotheses.


Biological Sciences should teach what we know, how we know it and how we can test it. Guessing 'whys' and ‘what-ifs’ that cannot be tested should be a different class altogether OR open-ended and all inclusive.
Precisely why evolutionary theory is an invaluable part of biological sciences, and why Creationism is best saved for Story Time in the kindergartens.

I'd try to point out to him he was wrong, but if he didn't believe me, I'd just shrug my shoulders and walk off. Just because someone is an idiot or thinks something you consider stupid doesn't mean they're any less human or less deserving of respect.
But what happens when that idiot trys to teach that incorrect hypothesis as truth in a class that it is NOT compatible with

Incorrect. Evolutionary theory generates countless hypotheses that are testable. Indeed, some of our greatest recent scientific advances have come from the verification of such hypotheses.

Care to share?

Care to share?

Here you go (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html)

Here you go (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html)

Thank you.

Thank you.

I live to please;)

I live to please;)

Mission accomplished.

Tell me, are you female?;)

Mission accomplished.

Tell me, are you female?;)

Afraid not. "Dove" throws most people, I actually took it because it's the old Irish translation of my name in real life.

Afraid not. "Dove" throws most people, I actually took it because it's the old Irish translation of my name in real life.

Then we have no further business to conduct.

With very few exceptions, almost every Darwinist I've ever met has been an arrogant, haughty bigot with zero tolerance for any view that does not conform to their ideas.
*snips*

I ask you, Darwinists: Why the bigotry?

It's obvious some people here have no decency or manners whatsoever, so please, just sweep this stupid thread into the dustbin of history and save us all a lot of unwarranted grief.

Yes, painfully obvious.

Incorrect. Evolutionary theory generates countless hypotheses that are testable. Indeed, some of our greatest recent scientific advances have come from the verification of such hypotheses.


Precisely why evolutionary theory is an invaluable part of biological sciences, and why Creationism is best saved for Story Time in the kindergartens.

When looking at the fossil record, for example, we assume that the theory of evolution is true.

Biological Sciences are what they are, though, outside of any theory of origin or explaining the ‘why’ we see the results that we see. We interpret the results through the glass of our evolutionary theory. However, even when the results of a test/experiment do not conform to our predictions, the evolutionary theory itself remains unchallenged because if the results do not conform to 'natural selection' it will conform to 'genetic drift' or some other such variable that we can still view through our glass of evolutionary theory. Thus, the results of the prediction test do not prove the theory, because the results of the test cannot disprove the theory ~ the results are outside of the theory. The truth is that the results will be the results regardless of our 'overall' theory of how it all fits together and teaching Biological Sciences only in the hard core sense is entirely possible and possibly preferable.

As to that link someone else posted, the ‘talkorigins’ propaganda, it’s just that, party propaganda, partial truths and presented via purpose driven ideology... essentially pointless to any complete theory discussion.

The theory of evolution gives us a skeleton framework, the overall 'theory' that tries to give us a better understanding of the fossil record but even as the fossil record changes with new findings the theory of evolution itself remains unchallenged because it explains whatever we find irregardless of whatever it might be, it predicts nothing 'required' to prove or disprove the theory itself

I'm not saying anything new about Evolution myself. It's well known that the fossil record can only tell us how evolution occurs, which particular pathway it may or may not have taken, but not whether or not the theory of evolution is true because the theory is outside of the results themselves.

As to that link someone else posted, the ‘talkorigins’ propaganda, it’s just that, party propaganda, partial truths and presented via purpose driven ideology... essentially pointless to any complete theory discussion.If you consider talkorigins worthless party propaganda, then there's no point in discussing with you, really...

If you consider talkorigins worthless party propaganda, then there's no point in discussing with you, really...


The site is worthless because it hasn't been approved by which ever religion he is in. You just can't talk facts with the religious type of people....

As long as creationists continually portray their beliefs as being equal to scientific study, I will continue to look down on them. Although I am more likely to just ignore an idiot rather than talk to them.

If they would acknowledge science and maybe learn it a bit, and then try and relate it to their religion, maybe I would show a little more tolerance.

Work with someone who has said "He believes in science" when talking about you, and you will definitely lose a lot of respect for creationists.

This is not intended to be a flame or a personal attack, merely an observation. With very few exceptions, almost every Darwinist I've ever met has been an arrogant, haughty bigot with zero tolerance for any view that does not conform to their ideas. People who believe in Creationism are laughed at and subjected to smears and ridicule. Many Darwinists express alarm that "intelligent design," et. al., is taught in public schools, a sentiment I share, as I believe religion has no place in a science classroom. Still, the treatment Darwinists mete out to those who don't believe in evolution sickens me, much like how communists refer to anyone who doesn't conform to their ideas as "fascists." So I ask you, Darwinists: Why the bigotry?
It's not bigorty. It's science.

If you propose non-science as science, you deserve to be laughed at. Seriously, you have earned the title "imbecile" if you think that either creationism or intelligent design are science and as such, belong in a science classroom.

It's not bigorty. It's science.

If you propose non-science as science, you deserve to be laughed at. Seriously, you have earned the title "imbecile" if you think that either creationism or intelligent design are science and as such, belong in a science classroom.

So,

ad hominem attacks=science

ad hominem attacks=|= bigotry

thanx, got it!

So if I say that you are an imbecilic idiot who believes science means never having to have manners or courtesy, that is a scientific statement, not bigotry!

Here's the thing, though. It's a proven fact that 2+2=7 is NOT true. Creationism and Darwinism are not proven facts. They are unproven theories.
Creationism is NOT a theory!!!

So,

ad hominem attacks=science

ad hominem attacks=|= bigotry

thanx, got it!

So if I say that you are an imbecilic idiot who believes science means never having to have manners or courtesy, that is a scientific statement, not bigotry!
I said that anyone who tries to say that creationism is science is horribly ignorant. It's a fact.
I'm sorry if that's an ad homeneim attack.

You pretty much answered your own question in your last sentence. Visit most any University and you will quickly find that their faculity and administrations have been almost entirely over run with leftists practicing indoctrination instead of education. It should be of no surprise as the infection of the educational system is a stated method of operation for both communist and socialist doctrine. Just look around one of those places and you find it is consumed in diversity of everything except, "Thought".
:rolleyes:

Yes, blame the leftists and the commies because evolution is a scientific theory, but creationism isn't.

The site is worthless because it hasn't been approved by which ever religion he is in. You just can't talk facts with the religious type of people....

Once someone starts positing links to Talk Origins the counter is to post to Anti-Talk Origins websites... :rolleyes: Providing nothing new.


If the intent is to argue with each other, their entire purpose is to argue with each other so then they both might prove to be useful. However, in the end, that is nothing more than acting like Democrats and Republicans in America ~ never ending party bickering without finding new and better answers because nobody is actually talking about better answer anymore, they just want their side to win.

If you vote and think independently you might recognize the fact that neither side is worthy of blind devotion and both sides are liable to be wrong and useless from time to time. Ideological devotion to one own side's standard/arguments is not proof of anything valuable when a complete 'theory' of origin is being considered.


But I think close mindedness predominates here, so, here are two links to get you started, have fun :rolleyes: Anti-Talk-Origins (http://www.trueorigin.org/) and of course, Talk-Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/)

Once someone starts positing links to Talk Origins the counter is to post to Anti-Talk Origins websites... :rolleyes: Providing nothing new.


If the intent is to argue with each other, their entire purpose is to argue with each other so then they both might prove to be useful. However, in the end, that is nothing more than acting like Democrats and Republicans in America ~ never ending party bickering without finding new and better answers because nobody is actually talking about better answer anymore, they just want their side to win.

If you vote and think independently you might recognize the fact that neither side is worthy of blind devotion and both sides are liable to be wrong and useless from time to time. Ideological devotion to one own side's standard/arguments is not proof of anything valuable when a complete 'theory' of origin is being considered.


But I think close mindedness predominates here, so, here are two links to get you started, have fun :rolleyes: Anti-Talk-Origins (http://www.trueorigin.org/) and of course, Talk-Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/)

Denying the evidence and facts that support evolution is the true way of being blind. The thing is, anybody that truly understand evolution knows that it is not perfect, but it atleast has EVIDENCE to back it up. I do think independently which is the reason I am not part of the deaf leading the blind that is religion which has no supporting evidence other than what human beings said a few thousand years ago who, mind you, at that time had no clue as to how to explain any of their surroundings. Who has the more open mind I ask you?

I'm a Creationist, and I hate Bush. I have just as much disrespect for those trying to force ID down peoples' throat as Darwinists do. I just don't see why they can't show more respect, rather than calling Creationists idiots, etc.


creationists are idiots .... simple

creationists are idiots .... simple


Amen.

Ok, I'm not much into trolling, but this is the truth. How was it that Orwell quote?

"How can you discuss with a mad genius that after calmly hearing all your logical arguments, persists in his madness?"

what the hell is a darwinist?

It's a moderate in the intellectual dichotomy formed by the nomnological schools of thought as established by Samantha and Endora. The Darinists and the Derwoodists.

Denying the evidence and facts that support evolution is the true way of being blind. The thing is, anybody that truly understand evolution knows that it is not perfect, but it atleast has EVIDENCE to back it up. I do think independently which is the reason I am not part of the deaf leading the blind that is religion which has no supporting evidence other than what human beings said a few thousand years ago who, mind you, at that time had no clue as to how to explain any of their surroundings. Who has the more open mind I ask you?

Well there is no proof of evolution until archeologists can produce the entire fossil record for every species that exists today from its earliest protazoan ancestor.

And there is no proof of ID until God hands over the videotape of himself building the very first camcorder with which he shot the tape.

It's a moderate in the intellectual dichotomy formed by the nomnological schools of thought as established by Samantha and Endora. The Darinists and the Derwoodists.
Isn't the term of abuse among the religious right "evolutionist" rather than "Darwinist"?

Denying the evidence and facts that support evolution is the true way of being blind. The thing is, anybody that truly understand evolution knows that it is not perfect, but it atleast has EVIDENCE to back it up. (snipped for relevence)
And this is one of the things I dig about the "And God Said" crowd-especially the ones trying to pretend that they're not part of that-

It's always attacking the theory of evolution, "It can't explain this bit of minutia," or "We don't know how this part works" etc. to insinuate that the whole thing would then get thrown out in favor of 'Act of Sky Wizard.' Scientest and those who at least understand enough know that it is in fact possible to find out that evolution doesn't work the way we think it does, but it will be replaced by a different, likely similar theory. It's comical to think it's This or Sky Wizard.

I'd love to see the Sky Wizard put forth it's theories rather than nitpick another theory. Taking one theory out doesn't default-you have to prove your theory not just discredit the other one. I may have talked in circles. Hopefully someone currently more articulate will bail me out here.

It's a moderate in the intellectual dichotomy formed by the nomnological schools of thought as established by Samantha and Endora. The Darinists and the Derwoodists.
Take a bow.

And I'm allowed to do so. Your allowed to hold your belief and I'm allowed to call you an idiot because of it(I'm not calling you an idiot here its just for the sake of example). Freedom is a double edged sword.
You can call us idiots also to be fair. People have the right to think the other is an idiot no matter how 'idiotic' that seems.

And this is one of the things I dig about the "And God Said" crowd-especially the ones trying to pretend that they're not part of that-

It's always attacking the theory of evolution, "It can't explain this bit of minutia," or "We don't know how this part works" etc. to insinuate that the whole thing would then get thrown out in favor of 'Act of Sky Wizard.' Scientest and those who at least understand enough know that it is in fact possible to find out that evolution doesn't work the way we think it does, but it will be replaced by a different, likely similar theory. It's comical to think it's This or Sky Wizard.

I'd love to see the Sky Wizard put forth it's theories rather than nitpick another theory. Taking one theory out doesn't default-you have to prove your theory not just discredit the other one. I may have talked in circles. Hopefully someone currently more articulate will bail me out here.
You don't need bailing out. It's pretty clear what you're driving at here.
Anyone who is genuinely wondering why the Darwinists (anyone who doesn't believe in Creationism or ID in this context?) are so pissed off could do a lot worse than reading Science On Trial by Futuyama.

And this is one of the things I dig about the "And God Said" crowd-especially the ones trying to pretend that they're not part of that-

It's always attacking the theory of evolution, "It can't explain this bit of minutia," or "We don't know how this part works" etc. to insinuate that the whole thing would then get thrown out in favor of 'Act of Sky Wizard.' Scientest and those who at least understand enough know that it is in fact possible to find out that evolution doesn't work the way we think it does, but it will be replaced by a different, likely similar theory. It's comical to think it's This or Sky Wizard.

I'd love to see the Sky Wizard put forth it's theories rather than nitpick another theory. Taking one theory out doesn't default-you have to prove your theory not just discredit the other one. I may have talked in circles. Hopefully someone currently more articulate will bail me out here.

Evolutionists cannot explain the minutia of their ideas, while creationists cannot explain the central basis of their ideas.

I try to stay out of this arguement. I don't care if Evolution is wrong or not as long as it works it's fine by me.

Well there is no proof of evolution until archeologists can produce the entire fossil record for every species that exists today from its earliest protazoan ancestor.

And there is no proof of ID until God hands over the videotape of himself building the very first camcorder with which he shot the tape.

What can you prove? Nothing. You can only disprove things. The argument here is not that evolution is a fact. Let me ask you this, look at the following numbers and tell me what the next logical number is in the progression (I'll keep it simple): 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,..? Hmm, according to creationist, those numbers are a fallicy and it doesn'tmatter what number is next because god says so. Arguing that since we don't have a complete fossil record means we can't prove evolution is right, while fundamentally (amazing how much that word is brought up in discussions like this) you are right, it's the same thing as arguing that you can't prove that the earth is round since you can't see all of it at once with your' own eyes. We atleast are able to look at the evidence and make a logical conclusion on the evidence presented to us.

The key here is that we are not saying god did not in fact do it. Seeing as we cannot disprove that in any way, we are looking for the HOW, the thing that religion seems to want to sweep under the carpet and deny the existence of for what ever illogical and asinine reason they have come up with this time.

How come fossils all point to an evolutionary process?

"I will give up my belief in evolution if someone finds a fossil rabbit in the Precambrian." -Haldane.
"The reason is that the rabbit, which is a fully formed mammal, must have evolved through reptilian, amphibian, and piscine stages and should not therefore appear in the fossil record a hundred million years or so before its fossil ancestors.

Opponents of evolution have appreciated the power of this argument and numerous fraudulent claims have been made for fossil human footprints contemporary with dinosaur tracks.

The fact that no such human fossils have been found - that the order of appearance of the main fossil groups matches their evolutionary order - is the way in which the fossil record does provide good evidence for evolution."
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/tutorials/The_evidence_for_evolution23.asp

I say all ID proponents should concentrate on finding the rabbit, then change the school curriculum when they do. Go! FIND THAT RABBIT!!
(Are they gone?)

This is not intended to be a flame or a personal attack, merely an observation. With very few exceptions, almost every Darwinist I've ever met has been an arrogant, haughty bigot with zero tolerance for any view that does not conform to their ideas. People who believe in Creationism are laughed at and subjected to smears and ridicule. Many Darwinists express alarm that "intelligent design," et. al., is taught in public schools, a sentiment I share, as I believe religion has no place in a science classroom. Still, the treatment Darwinists mete out to those who don't believe in evolution sickens me, much like how communists refer to anyone who doesn't conform to their ideas as "fascists." So I ask you, Darwinists: Why the bigotry?

. . .Could it be that Darwinian theory correctly states the affairs of the world and the mechanisms by which it works, whereas Creationism does not?

The simple fact is that while we can't say we "know" that evolution is how to explain the current diversity on the planet, we would also say it only in the same sense that we would say that we don't "know" that the sun is going to rise tomorrow: there is no logical reason that it should rise, and we only have a vast amount of experiential data to inductively infer that it will rise tomorrow. But I don't think you are going to find any serious argument about whether or not the sun is going to rise tomorrow. In the same way, evolution is only "theory" in the sense that there is no logical necessity that evolution must be the way life has come about, and the only way it has come about. As far as empirical research, however, we have overwhelming evidence that this, in fact, was the way in which life came about to its present state. So why then are there so many people who dispute it? Well, I could answer, but any blunt appraisal would make me guilty of being an arrogant, haughty bigot.

. . .Could it be that Darwinian theory correctly states the affairs of the world and the mechanisms by which it works, whereas Creationism does not?

-snip-

So being correct gives one a license to make ad hominem attacks on one's opponents?

So, when someone disagrees with you, rather than reasoning with them, you can just call them names and hope that they will go away?

My, how effective!;)

Here, in a nutshell, is why I get pissed off at both anti-Evolutionists and Global Warming deniers.

I enter into a discussion/argument/debate in good faith. I make pains to address the specific point that are brought up. I back myself up with sources. In some cases, when a graph or some such is posted by an anti-evolutionist or a global warming denier, I look for a later work by the same scientist to see if they later reversed themselves (in the case of peer-reviewed articles, this has, in my experience, always been the case.)

Then, foolishly expecting my reasonableness to be reciprocated, I sit back and wait for a cogent rebuttal.

And wait.

And wait.

To this date, I have yet to have someone respond with a peer-reviewed article that opposes either Evolution or Global Warming.

In the absense of the opposition even trying to be reasonable, I get pissed off. It's rude. Why should I work on point by point refutation only to have my post ignored? Later, when the inevitable same assertions are made repeatedly that have been shot down before, I lose patience and call the person an idiot. Upon review, while imflammatory, I find the description to be accurate.

So being correct gives one a license to make ad hominem attacks on one's opponents?

So, when someone disagrees with you, rather than reasoning with them, you can just call them names and hope that they will go away?

My, how effective!;)

It's not that they disagree, it's HOW they disagree. Most of the disagreement I see from the Creationist side consists of ignoring my points completely and then making the same claims that my points directly rebutted. At that point, calling someone an idiot is not an ad hominem, but an accurate description.

It's not that they disagree, it's HOW they disagree. Most of the disagreement I see from the Creationist side consists of ignoring my points completely and then making the same claims that my points directly rebutted. At that point, calling someone an idiot is not an ad hominem, but an accurate description.
Works well enough for me.

So being correct gives one a license to make ad hominem attacks on one's opponents?

So, when someone disagrees with you, rather than reasoning with them, you can just call them names and hope that they will go away?

My, how effective!;)

Not exactly. It's the fact that they won't change their minds in the face of any kind of reasoning whatsoever that justifies the ad hominems.

If you don't know something, you have no reason to be mistreated. If you are provided what is more or less complete proof that you are incorrect, and you still stubbornly insist that you are right, then you are an ignorant git who deserves to have that fact pointed out to you.

Here, in a nutshell, is why I get pissed off at both anti-Evolutionists and Global Warming deniers.
-snip-

To this date, I have yet to have someone respond with a peer-reviewed article that opposes either Evolution or Global Warming.

-snip-


There will never be a peer-reviewed article that opposes either Evolution or Global Warming, because it will never be allowed.

The same way that before the Civil Rights revolution in the USA, certain people were not allowed to go certain places---

No one is allowed to question the great and powerful Oz, no one! So go to the other water fountain, the one labeled "idiots and morons drink here"

Because, anyone who opposes Evolution or Global Warming is, de facto, an unqualified ignorant moron, no matter how many letters after their name, how long they have studied in their field, how much research they have done, how many papers they have published...

With very few exceptions, almost every Darwinist I've ever met has been an arrogant, haughty bigot with zero tolerance for any view that does not conform to their ideas.
I believe in evolution but I realize it doesn't cover everything...to creationists and IDists I'm just like like, meh, we can all believe what we want to, no matter how offbeat it may sound to either you *or* me

There will never be a peer-reviewed article that opposes either Evolution or Global Warming, because it will never be allowed.

The same way that before the Civil Rights revolution in the USA, certain people were not allowed to go certain places---

No one is allowed to question the great and powerful Oz, no one! So go to the other water fountain, the one labeled "idiots and morons drink here"
Except no-one is making creationists shit in seperate washrooms, or making 'em sit at the back of a bus.

So being correct gives one a license to make ad hominem attacks on one's opponents?

So, when someone disagrees with you, rather than reasoning with them, you can just call them names and hope that they will go away?

My, how effective!;)

I think you are rather confused as to what an ad hominem is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

What I have seen in most debates is that random Creationist 001 either refuses to back up their points at all, or repeats the same refuted points over and over again without ever doing away with the refutation. Thus, someone who then turns around and calls them ignorant is not making an ad hominem attack. They are not discounting the argument on the basis of some irrelevant factor about the person, but on the basis that they have made no argument at all.

I think you are rather confused as to what an ad hominem is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

What I have seen in most debates is that random Creationist 001 either refuses to back up their points at all, or repeats the same refuted points over and over again without ever doing away with the refutation. Thus, someone who then turns around and calls them ignorant is not making an ad hominem attack. They are not discounting the argument on the basis of some irrelevant factor about the person, but on the basis that they have made no argument at all.

Ad hominem=calling anyone who opposes evolution a "moron", an "idiot", or other names, upon learning that the person opposes evolution, without waiting to hear anything else they have to say.

And that is the topic of this thread. And that is what normally happens, not after any repetition, or even any answer. Once you self-identify as "anti-evolution", the immediate response is something derogatory, aimed at the person, rather than the idea.

Once you self-identify as "anti-evolution", the immediate response is something derogatory, aimed at the person, rather than the idea.
In general, or can you be somewhat more specific?

There will never be a peer-reviewed article that opposes either Evolution or Global Warming, because it will never be allowed.

The same way that before the Civil Rights revolution in the USA, certain people were not allowed to go certain places---

No one is allowed to question the great and powerful Oz, no one! So go to the other water fountain, the one labeled "idiots and morons drink here"

Because, anyone who opposes Evolution or Global Warming is, de facto, an unqualified ignorant moron, no matter how many letters after their name, how long they have studied in their field, how much research they have done, how many papers they have published...

The reason why their articles are rejected under peer-review is not because of their position but because they fail to follow scientific principles when creating their articles. They use disproven data and cherry-pick. They make unfounded conclusions. They force false dichotomys.

There's no global conspiracy against new ideas. There's a global conspiracy against using trash science in scientific journals.

Okay, how about I loosen the restrictions. How about someone post any really good article that disproves Evolution?

In general, or can you be somewhat more specific?

from another thread, Cornell Chief Rejects ID:
I also came across this article which supports the idea that even some British scientists are as dumb as American's Behe.

from the first post.

Examples are too numerous to cite, I could pull them up all day and all night.

Gotta get back to revising a database...

This is not intended to be a flame or a personal attack, merely an observation. With very few exceptions, almost every Darwinist I've ever met has been an arrogant, haughty bigot with zero tolerance for any view that does not conform to their ideas. People who believe in Creationism are laughed at and subjected to smears and ridicule. Many Darwinists express alarm that "intelligent design," et. al., is taught in public schools, a sentiment I share, as I believe religion has no place in a science classroom. Still, the treatment Darwinists mete out to those who don't believe in evolution sickens me, much like how communists refer to anyone who doesn't conform to their ideas as "fascists." So I ask you, Darwinists: Why the bigotry?

1. Take a good look in the mirror and re-read what you posted about bigotry.

2. Perhaps "Darwinists" are a bit frustrated with attempts to teach pure religion as if it were science.

3. Take a look at what Creationists say about Darwinists.

4. I don't think it is correct to ridicule people generally or for most things. But one's arguments are proper targets for ridicule. Some of the beliefs of some Creationists are ridiculous and should be treated that way.

So being correct gives one a license to make ad hominem attacks on one's opponents?

So, when someone disagrees with you, rather than reasoning with them, you can just call them names and hope that they will go away?

My, how effective!;)

1. You don't understand the meaning of ad hominem.

2. Yes. If you believe in something idiotic, I call say that it is idiotic. The fact that you may persist in your idiocy is --other than being annoying-- your problem, not mine.

I am sure that someone else has pointed this out. But it's not "Darwinist." And you wonder why people get pissed off?

Oh yeah, and the mockery thing is good. Creationism and ID are silly ideas, and should be mocked. Along with belief in "Space Monkeys" and the tooth fairy.

from another thread, Cornell Chief Rejects ID
That's not the point.
Examples are too numerous to cite, I could pull them up all day and all night.
And yet this is precisely the sort of thing (providing examples) that is demanded of those who would support the theory of evolution. Demanded, then dismissed altogether, once examples have been dug up.
Gotta get back to revising a database...
Right-o. Good luck with that.

I am sure that someone else has pointed this out. But it's not "Darwinist." And you wonder why people get pissed off?

Oh yeah, and the mockery thing is good. Creationism and ID are silly ideas, and should be mocked. Along with belief in "Space Monkeys" and the tooth fairy.

Amen.

In the marketplace of ideas, creation science and so-called "ID" are monopoly money.

Amen.

In the marketplace of ideas, creation science and so-called "ID" are monopoly money.

They're not even the good Monopoly money, the ones colored goldenrod and orange. TThey're more the pink and white Monopoly money.

They're not even the good Monopoly money, the ones colored goldenrod and orange. TThey're more the pink and white Monopoly money.
Nah. More like a card from 'Community Chest'. And not the 'get out of jail free' card, either.

Ad hominem=calling anyone who opposes evolution a "moron", an "idiot", or other names, upon learning that the person opposes evolution, without waiting to hear anything else they have to say.

Technically not correct. An ad hominem would be saying, "You believe in Creationism, therefore I can reject any argument you make." This is not a statement I have seen more than....say, one person make. Most of us are waiting for an actual argument to debate - one that is rational and backed by evidence. And we wait.....and we wait......and we wait.......and we wait.......

Just saying, "You believe something I don't, therefore you are a moron," is simply an insult.

And that is the topic of this thread. And that is what normally happens, not after any repetition, or even any answer. Once you self-identify as "anti-evolution", the immediate response is something derogatory, aimed at the person, rather than the idea.

I have seen about, oh, one person that has done that.

Ad hominem=calling anyone who opposes evolution a "moron", an "idiot", or other names, upon learning that the person opposes evolution, without waiting to hear anything else they have to say.


Ad Hominem - "You are an idiot, so your arguments must be incorrect."

Not ad hominem - "Your arguments are incorrect, so you must be an idiot."

Ad Hominem - "You are an idiot, so your arguments must be incorrect."

Not ad hominem - "Your arguments are incorrect, so you must be an idiot."
Here's what I like about NS: there's always somebody around who can break things down into a very simple form. Not only does this make the Forum accessable to new people, it also helps me understand posts when I've been drinking.

How about,

I reject your position, therefore you are an idiot.

The whole scientific community rejects your position, therefore you are an idiot.

Whoops, added in an appeal to authority there...:mp5:

How about,

I reject your position, therefore you are an idiot.

The whole scientific community rejects your position, therefore you are an idiot.

Whoops, added in an appeal to authority there...:mp5:
It's not a matter of rejecting... it's a matter of the arguments being completely false.

Insulting people who want to impose a "stupid" view on others is one thing. Insulting people who have "stupid" views, but come their "stupid" views to themselves, is something different.

To be honest, it is not difficult to consider people who reject education to be stupid.

This is not intended to be a flame or a personal attack, merely an observation. With very few exceptions, almost every Darwinist I've ever met has been an arrogant, haughty bigot with zero tolerance for any view that does not conform to their ideas. People who believe in Creationism are laughed at and subjected to smears and ridicule. Many Darwinists express alarm that "intelligent design," et. al., is taught in public schools, a sentiment I share, as I believe religion has no place in a science classroom. Still, the treatment Darwinists mete out to those who don't believe in evolution sickens me, much like how communists refer to anyone who doesn't conform to their ideas as "fascists." So I ask you, Darwinists: Why the bigotry?

Why creationists are laughed at is because they refuse point blank to post evidence for their claims that a god or gods was/were involved in the creation of our universe.

from another thread, Cornell Chief Rejects ID:

from the first post.

Not an ad hominem. She is referring to a specific person, whose "arguments" for including ID in a science class have been logically refuted again and again. His arguments are incorrect by the very method of science.

Thus, she is not saying, "You are dumb, so I won't listen to you." She is saying, "You're arguments have been shown to be wrong and yet you still make them, so you are dumb."

With very few exceptions, almost every Darwinist I've ever met has been an arrogant, haughty bigot with zero tolerance for any view that does not conform to their ideas. People who believe in Creationism are laughed at and subjected to smears and ridicule.

With very few exceptions almost every heliocentrist I've ever met has been an arrogant, haughty bigot with zero tolerance for any view that does not conform to their ideas. People who believe in geocentrism are laughed at and subjected to smears and ridicule.

So I ask you... Why the bigotry?

Does it make more sense when I substitute one scientific theory for another? People who do not "believe in" evolution, like people who do not believe in a heliocentric solar system, deserve our ridicule.

This is not intended to be a flame or a personal attack, merely an observation. With very few exceptions, almost every Darwinist I've ever met has been an arrogant, haughty bigot with zero tolerance for any view that does not conform to their ideas. People who believe in Creationism are laughed at and subjected to smears and ridicule. Many Darwinists express alarm that "intelligent design," et. al., is taught in public schools, a sentiment I share, as I believe religion has no place in a science classroom. Still, the treatment Darwinists mete out to those who don't believe in evolution sickens me, much like how communists refer to anyone who doesn't conform to their ideas as "fascists." So I ask you, Darwinists: Why the bigotry?


And you call yourself an objectivist? Hah!

And you call yourself an objectivist? Hah!
Man, "objectivist" has to be the most misused term ever...I've yet to encounter a single supposed "objectivist" who actually followed the principles of objectivism.

Just because someone is an idiot or thinks something you consider stupid doesn't mean they're any less human or less deserving of respect.
Nothing wrong with criticizing views, but calling people "idiots," etc. is out of line.

So the real problem isnt thinking of people as idiots but calling them that, eh? :rolleyes:

Why the bigotry?

Man, "objectivist" has to be the most misused term ever...I've yet to encounter a single supposed "objectivist" who actually followed the principles of objectivism.


I completely agree. Ayn Rand was the worst moral relativist I've seen. Uh, libertarians. I'm vomiting all over myself!

I completely agree. Ayn Rand was the worst moral relativist I've seen. Uh, libertarians. I'm vomiting all over myself!
I dunno about that...Rand and I don't exactly see eye to eye on everything, but I think there are plenty of moral relativists worse than her :). Plus, my politics fit the textbook definition of "libertarian," even though I can't stand the Libertarians in the United States (where I live).

I completely agree. Ayn Rand was the worst moral relativist I've seen. Uh, libertarians. I'm vomiting all over myself!
Yeah, I've only read about her philosophy, but it just seems awful...

I'm convinced that people in the states only like her because she went on about how the american society was closest to the ideal society. Nothing like a little flattery to make you well liked. I'd never actually heard of her, in all my years of taking philosophy classes, but one kid on another message board got taught about her in a highschool philosophy class.

Yeah, I've only read about her philosophy, but it just seems awful...

I'm convinced that people in the states only like her because she went on about how the american society was closest to the ideal society. Nothing like a little flattery to make you well liked. I'd never actually heard of her, in all my years of taking philosophy classes, but one kid on another message board got taught about her in a highschool philosophy class.
I honestly recommend you at least try reading "Atlas Shrugged." You will probably get very pissed off while reading it, but it's an important book that makes some important points...even if you totally disagree with it, it's helpful because it gives you a peak into a particular mindset that is becoming more and more common these days. In a way, I tend to prefer reading "classics" that were written by authors I disagree with, because of that whole "know thine enemy" thing. :)

I honestly recommend you at least try reading "Atlas Shrugged." You will probably get very pissed off while reading it, but it's an important book that makes some important points...even if you totally disagree with it, it's helpful because it gives you a peak into a particular mindset that is becoming more and more common these days. In a way, I tend to prefer reading "classics" that were written by authors I disagree with, because of that whole "know thine enemy" thing. :)
Well, maybe in the summer. I think I actually tried to find some of her books at the local library after this kid kept going on about how important she was and everything and they had like one copy of a couple of her books spread out throughout the library system.
At any rate, I don't have much time for reading things that I know I will enjoy lately. I still have Sartre's Being and Nothingness relatively untouched. So perhaps in the summer I'll get some reading done.

Well, maybe in the summer. I think I actually tried to find some of her books at the local library after this kid kept going on about how important she was and everything and they had like one copy of a couple of her books spread out throughout the library system.
At any rate, I don't have much time for reading things that I know I will enjoy lately. I still have Sartre's Being and Nothingness relatively untouched. So perhaps in the summer I'll get some reading done.
Lol, it does sound like you have your work cut out for you. Rand's work fits in the category of "things you eventually should get around to reading," but I don't think there's any hurry. Though I must say, it gave me a whole new view of some current American conservatives...

How about,

I reject your position, therefore you are an idiot.

May still be a fallacy, but not ad hominem.

The whole scientific community rejects your position, therefore you are an idiot.

It is more like, "All scientific evidence rejects your position, therefore you are an idiot."

As for appeals to authority, what do you base your beliefs on. List some of the logical statements and evidence you have for creationism, or am I right in assuming that all of creationism is an appeal to authority.

As for appeals to authority, what do you base your beliefs on. List some of the logical statements and evidence you have for creationism, or am I right in assuming that all of creationism is an appeal to authority.
Prepare for page after page of "why evolution is wrong." Creationists don't have a shred of evidence, and they labor under the misconception that proving evolution wrong (which they can't do in the first place) would somehow make them automatically right.

This is not intended to be a flame or a personal attack, merely an observation. With very few exceptions, almost every Darwinist I've ever met has been an arrogant, haughty bigot with zero tolerance for any view that does not conform to their ideas. People who believe in Creationism are laughed at and subjected to smears and ridicule. Many Darwinists express alarm that "intelligent design," et. al., is taught in public schools, a sentiment I share, as I believe religion has no place in a science classroom. Still, the treatment Darwinists mete out to those who don't believe in evolution sickens me, much like how communists refer to anyone who doesn't conform to their ideas as "fascists." So I ask you, Darwinists: Why the bigotry?
It may not be inteded to be a personal attack on them, but it probably is anyway.

Well, first off, there is no such real thing as a "Darwinist". That's like calling people who believe in gravity "Newtonists". It's silly. It's just a silly word invented by Creationists that doesn't actually mean anything.

Second, the Theory of Evolution in its primary form was not Darwin's alone, and was not even original, and has been modified since. To attribute it to him as an '-ism' comes off like a child attempting to sound grown up about science.

Third, all Darwin did, like Newton, was to describe a natural observable phenomenon. He didn't invent evolution anymore than Newton invented gravity, but the poor man's name sure gets dragged through the gutter by Creationists. One can hardly blame people for defending him assertively.

Fourth, being righteous is not the same thing as being closed-minded.

Fifth, ID supporters have time and again been asked to provide evidence and scientific theories, and have not yet done so; yet they still insist on being referred to as a "science". One can hardly blame scientsts for being haughty.

And last, you are correct, though it shouldn't be generalised so, that some of them are derogatory in the way they go about refuting claims. But that isn't unique to their camp.

I'd try to point out to him he was wrong, but if he didn't believe me, I'd just shrug my shoulders and walk off. Just because someone is an idiot or thinks something you consider stupid doesn't mean they're any less human or less deserving of respect.
Calling someone an idiot and ignoring them is not respecting them or their beliefs.

Well, first off, there is no such real thing as a "Darwinist". That's like calling people who believe in gravity "Newtonists". It's silly. It's just a silly word invented by Creationists that doesn't actually mean anything.


:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: Hit the nail on the head with that (as well as the rest but that really stuck out for me)

Prepare for page after page of "why evolution is wrong." Creationists don't have a shred of evidence, and they labor under the misconception that proving evolution wrong (which they can't do in the first place) would somehow make them automatically right.

Where creationists diffrer from IDer's is that Creationists seek to point out the problems in the current model of scientific explination for the origins of both the universe and life (Evolution is just one part of that process) however ID makes the claim that life is far to complex to arrise naturally, without an interviening force.

Where creationists diffrer from IDer's is that Creationists seek to point out the problems in the current model of scientific explination for the origins of both the universe and life (Evolution is just one part of that process) however ID makes the claim that life is far to complex to arrise naturally, without an interviening force.

Would you say that ID is just an example of people starting with the conclusion and using reverse logic, or is there a legitimate basis for ID?

Where creationists diffrer from IDer's is that Creationists seek to point out the problems in the current model of scientific explination for the origins of both the universe and life (Evolution is just one part of that process) however ID makes the claim that life is far to complex to arrise naturally, without an interviening force.
Ahhh back to the 300 proofs list


ARGUMENT FROM CREATION
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable
(3) Therefore, God exists.

This is not intended to be a flame or a personal attack, merely an observation. With very few exceptions, almost every Darwinist I've ever met has been an arrogant, haughty bigot with zero tolerance for any view that does not conform to their ideas.People who believe in Creationism are laughed at and subjected to smears and ridicule. Many Darwinists express alarm that "intelligent design," et. al., is taught in public schools, a sentiment I share, as I believe religion has no place in a science classroom. Still, the treatment Darwinists mete out to those who don't believe in evolution sickens me, much like how communists refer to anyone who doesn't conform to their ideas as "fascists." So I ask you, Darwinists: Why the bigotry?
Let's rewrite that a little bit and see how it looks, shall we?

This is not intended to be a flame or a personal attack, merely an observation. With very few exceptions, almost every Spheroid Earther I've ever met has been an arrogant, haughty bigot with zero tolerance for any view that does not conform to their ideas.People who believe in a Flat Earth are laughed at and subjected to smears and ridicule. Many Spheroid Earthers express alarm that the idea of a "disc-shaped earth," et. al., is taught in public schools, a sentiment I share, as I believe it has no place in a science classroom. Still, the treatment Spheroid Earthers mete out to those who don't believe in a spheroid Earth sickens me, much like how communists refer to anyone who doesn't conform to their ideas as "fascists." So I ask you, Spheroid Earthers: Why the bigotry?

Do you see the point now?

Nothing wrong with criticizing views, but calling people "idiots," etc. is out of line.
Not when they are idiots.

Would you say that ID is just an example of people starting with the conclusion and using reverse logic, or is there a legitimate basis for ID?
Surely you jest, Vitto. I so rarely have the displeasure of meeting a creationist who would accept such befuddled thinking! Obviously logic plays an enormous part in developing these competing explainations describing our origins.

Q: Why do you think the faithful call it faith?
A: Because it's backed up by empirical evidence, silly!

Because most people tend to be arrogant, hypocritical bigots, whether they be Evolutionists, Creationists, neutrals, or anything.

*goes back to seclusion on a Himalaya mountaintop*

ding, ding, ding, ding. We have a winner!

The thing is that anti-Evolutionists, Global Warming deniers and Bush apologists seem utterly unable, on average, to incorporate new and better information into their world view. This would be fine...as long as they have no interest in discussing such things. The problem is that those people I just mentioned seem to always want to loudly and persistently discuss their views but rarely ever accept evidence, data and "proof" even when it's hand-fed to them. On the other hand, they seem equally incapable of supplying their own evidence...apparently feeling that loud and repeated assertions constitute proof.

It's all fine and good to have differing ideas, ideals and viewpoints, but if you want to discuss them, SUPPORT them, dammit!

If you want to keep your ideas and you don't want to support your ideas with anything approaching facts, then don't discuss them. Otherwise you are opening yourself up, justifiably I might add, to being called an idiot.

Where creationists diffrer from IDer's is that Creationists seek to point out the problems in the current model of scientific explination for the origins of both the universe and life (Evolution is just one part of that process) however ID makes the claim that life is far to complex to arrise naturally, without an interviening force.

The problem with creationists/IDers is that they offer no evidence. I'm still waiting for one shred of evidence from you for the existance of a god(s).

Surely you jest, Vitto. I so rarely have the displeasure of meeting a creationist who would accept such befuddled thinking! Obviously logic plays an enormous part in developing these competing explainations describing our origins.

Q: Why do you think the faithful call it faith?
A: Because it's backed up by empirical evidence, silly!

We have sent satellites to heaven, you know. They never made it back, but we got some brilliant pictures from them.

Because most people tend to be arrogant, hypocritical bigots, whether they be Evolutionists, Creationists, neutrals, or anything.

*goes back to seclusion on a Himalaya mountaintop*
TAKE ME WITH YOU! i want to go to himalaya real much...

May still be a fallacy, but not ad hominem.



It is more like, "All scientific evidence rejects your position, therefore you are an idiot."

As for appeals to authority, what do you base your beliefs on. List some of the logical statements and evidence you have for creationism, or am I right in assuming that all of creationism is an appeal to authority.

No. That's exactly the sort of intoleant ignorance that's driving people away from Darwinism. Intelligent Design is based on the the learning of the theories behind evolution being kinda hard. Saying "God did it," is more succinct and understandable therefore more right. Better yet, the theory of Inscrutable Emergence which states "It's maaaagic."

This is not intended to be a flame or a personal attack, merely an observation. With very few exceptions, almost every Darwinist I've ever met has been an arrogant, haughty bigot with zero tolerance for any view that does not conform to their ideas. People who believe in Creationism are laughed at and subjected to smears and ridicule. Many Darwinists express alarm that "intelligent design," et. al., is taught in public schools, a sentiment I share, as I believe religion has no place in a science classroom. Still, the treatment Darwinists mete out to those who don't believe in evolution sickens me, much like how communists refer to anyone who doesn't conform to their ideas as "fascists." So I ask you, Darwinists: Why the bigotry?

I'm new here, (first post, joined yesterday) and I have been on the opposite end of that one more times than I have seen the senario you discribe. Maybe it's the frustration of years of the chastising we got, but it's still not a excuse to be a jerk. I'll be honest, I find Creationism mindboggleing and the current adminsitration is a easy scapegoat at which to point at.

But it's still no reason to be a ass.

It's not the belief, it's the person behind the belief. And I have found many more people to have less "humanity" than we would hope.

It may not be inteded to be a personal attack on them, but it probably is anyway.

Well, first off, there is no such real thing as a "Darwinist". That's like calling people who believe in gravity "Newtonists". It's silly. It's just a silly word invented by Creationists that doesn't actually mean anything.

Second, the Theory of Evolution in its primary form was not Darwin's alone, and was not even original, and has been modified since. To attribute it to him as an '-ism' comes off like a child attempting to sound grown up about science.

Third, all Darwin did, like Newton, was to describe a natural observable phenomenon. He didn't invent evolution anymore than Newton invented gravity, but the poor man's name sure gets dragged through the gutter by Creationists. One can hardly blame people for defending him assertively.

Fourth, being righteous is not the same thing as being closed-minded.

Fifth, ID supporters have time and again been asked to provide evidence and scientific theories, and have not yet done so; yet they still insist on being referred to as a "science". One can hardly blame scientsts for being haughty.

And last, you are correct, though it shouldn't be generalised so, that some of them are derogatory in the way they go about refuting claims. But that isn't unique to their camp.

I'd like to point out that Science never claims to have all the answers (and it never will) and it is a work in progress. Basically, it's the best explaination that we can give for the facts that are avaliabe at the present time. The Theory of Evolution is just that, a theory. Theories get disproved all the time. Remember when Dinosaurs were coldblooded, mal-adapted lizards that were snuffed out by warm-blooded, supremely adapted mammals? Now, we have better information, and are able to interpert what we have more exactly.

But theories are just theories, and some will never be proved as fact. And things that we take as fact today will be proved wrong in the future. Such is science.

But at least it tries to find the truth.

Remember when Dinosaurs were coldblooded, mal-adapted lizards that were snuffed out by warm-blooded, supremely adapted mammals? Now, we have better information, and are able to interpert what we have more exactly.


It is important to this discussion to point out something notable-we thought that dinosaurs where giant lizards but when we found out that was wrong it did not turn out that they where magical beast placed here as some cosmic kids bath-toy. A theory had a flaw in it that turned out to be something similar, not 'magic.'

The problem with creationists/IDers is that they offer no evidence. I'm still waiting for one shred of evidence from you for the existance of a god(s).

Not much different from your own beliefs. You and their group are rowing the same boat.

No. That's exactly the sort of intoleant ignorance that's driving people away from Darwinism.

What?

Not much different from your own beliefs. You and their group are rowing the same boat.

Yeah. Evolution isn't supported by anything substantive...(sarcasm so extreme it's illegal in 23 states.)

Yeah. Evolution isn't supported by anything substantive...(sarcasm so extreme it's illegal in 23 states.)

Wasn't talking about evolution. Evolution isn't a belief, it's a scientific theory.

In many threads he has made unscientific assertions about what science is and what it is capable of and when asked for evidence has claimed that evidence is unnecessary.

Examples:

Third, there is not infinate expance that science cannot explore.
It's a bold assertion. Now, let's see you prove it.
I don't need to.

You could say that man can attach meaning to things, but they can't have an innate (inborn/natural) meaning.
And what evidence do you base that assumption on?
No need for evidence, it isn't an assumption. Read what was written as it is self explanatory.

For god to exist he must be within our universe and within the rules of science.

While science cannot, as yet, answer all questions, it has already laid enough of the foundations for us to know that one day it will have all the answers.

There is no room left for a god, all the places for him to hide are gone.

It was a statement addressing the hypocracy of accusing ID'ers of something he is, himself, guilty of.

Wasn't talking about evolution. Evolution isn't a belief, it's a scientific theory.

In many threads he has made unscientific assertions about what science is and what it is capable of and when asked for evidence has claimed that evidence is unnecessary.

Examples:

[various snipped examples]


It was a statement addressing the hypocracy of accusing ID'ers of something he is, himself, guilty of.

Ah. Perfectly right then. My apologies. I think I've called him on such things before. To claim that science in any way touches on God, much less proves or disproves Him/It/Her/Them shows a frightful ignorance of science.

Ah. Perfectly right then. My apologies. I think I've called him on such things before. To claim that science in any way touches on God, much less proves or disproves Him/It/Her/Them shows a frightful ignorance of science.

The funny thing is they are both on the same side, Brenchly and ID'ers. They are trying to break the scientific method open to include philosophy and unobserved hypothesis. It goes against the very basis of science and, bringing it back on-topic, this is specifically why people so intollerant of people who try to suggest Creation or ID is scientific and, to be more inclusive, anyone who would like to claim science can make claims about God. Suggesting such things is an attack at the core of science and would damage it irreparably. They can have a discipline that addresses such things but it will not, it can not, be considered science.